[Talk-us-nps] Labeling question
Jason Remillard
remillard.jason at gmail.com
Fri Jun 28 21:23:35 UTC 2013
Hi,
The cape code national seashore also includes privately held land. I
have been working on refining the park boundary with the state parcel
data (which is very accurate).
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/170681587
For what its worth, I have been including the privately held land in
the boundary, since it really is in the park. I have not done so yet,
I was thinking of putting a landuse=residential, access=private around
the areas that are privately owned, and are not open to the public.
Thanks
Jason
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Jason Straub <straub20 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Morning all,
>
> I am working my way around the Pal Alto National Battlefield, and had a
> couple questions on labeling and visualizing.
>
> First, the main portion of the battlefield has a boundary encompassing the
> entirety of the official declared boundary of the park. Now the park does
> not own all this land. The eastern half is still privately owned. Should
> the boundary be the official or current extent?
>
> Second, the park encompasses the main Palo Alto Unit, and recently added the
> Resaca de la Palma unit, about 6 miles south of the main park inside
> Brownsville, TX. Would it be best/proper to combine these two into a single
> relation? Would the separate unit get named somewhere?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us-nps mailing list
> Talk-us-nps at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-nps
>
More information about the Talk-us-nps
mailing list